Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Auzy
wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 08:59
|
|
|
By the way, to code this app may require the following knowledge:
- web programming/PHP/Web Standards
- The editor could also be coded in javascript, and employ PHP for project storage. This way even the editor is totally cross platform. And it would be a good technology demonstration, drawing more developers to open source browser development (which is great for us, as the future will be online applications).
|
|
Ssdg
wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 10:16
|
|
|
|
Auzy> I think that Firefox3 uses the Flash script engine (Flash programs are made of a language that uses the same grammar as javascript if I remember correctly) which was released by adobe a few time ago.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 10:28
|
|
|
Yeah. Flash uses the same syntax as javascript, however, it uses a different set of libraries (actionscript). For all purposes though, it is proprietary though (Flash is the only program using this language).
Anything Actionscript can accomplish can be done with pure Javascript, and everyone supports javascript.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 11:08
|
|
|
Not currently ubby. I'm not sure if html currently has a mechanism (other then objects which aren't reliable).
But I have been told (possibly wrongly) that the next version of HTML adds major new features dealing with multimedia applications (I have not checked it myself though).
Either way, by the time that the editor for this has been completed, I'm pretty sure that HTML will be ready.
We have to stick to HTML/SVG/Javascript/AJAX (and PHP for server side communication) only, otherwise, we will always have to rely on a player "plugin" for every browser to add support. And as we have been shown, its near impossible to keep these players up to date.
|
|
ubby
wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 12:11
|
|
|
When it is possible to play video with it, it wil be interesting for Youtube.
Youtube is from Google and maybe Google want to help or sponsor it.
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 14:09
|
|
|
There would be wasy to hack around it already. Just that they would use external players still. To be 100% standards compliant needs it built into the language directly. It would give more control then.
But even without that in place, most uses of flash (menu's and such), should already be possible, and in a way that works everywhere
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 16:59
|
|
|
As far as my understanding goes HTML 5 supports video. However, the way it supports video is similar to how images are supported. For instance, at the moment an image can be defined using "", but an equally valid piece of HTML would be "".
In other words you're allowed to use whatever file format you like and it is up to browsers to support it. With images things seem to have stabilised around JPEG, GIF and PNG, however for video there is still a large amount of flux. Whatever format is chosen, there is no certainty that standards-compliant browsers can play it.
The logic used is that HTML standards are supposed to be around for a very long time, so enforcing our current codecs on people years from now wouldn't be desirable, nor would having to support a ton of legacy video formats if future HTML revisions keep adding more as they're discovered. Whether this is the best argument to use I don't know, but it is the one which has won.
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 17:02
|
|
|
Sorry, Brainstorm scrubbed the HTML examples from between the quotes :P
the first one should be, using arrow brackets instead of normal brackets: (img src='my_pic.jpg /)
the second one should be: (img src='my_pic_in_an_obscure_format.zxq' /)
|
|
glotz
wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 19:07
|
|
|
|
OFFTOPIC: just another interesting standards compliant demo, a standards compliant simple slide show. (XHTML, CSS, and JavaScript) http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/s5/
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 1 Jul 08 at 23:58
|
|
|
Thanks glotz.. Added it.
Thats true warbo, but the reality is that we still will support them anyway (because we all have dozens of encoded movies, and need to play video CD's and such). For the player, we could always stick to MPEG/VORBIS standards by default (and warn users against embedding other formats). And then we just need to ensure that browsers try to maintain support for mpeg/vorbis.
That wouldn't be too hard. And its better then maintaining 10 generations of FLV file in a flash-like player.
|
|
|
anyone tried www.openlaszlo.org
The only run anywhere ,no-lock-in rich internet platform
It can create output as a HTML file (using HTML,SVG,Javascript & AJAX)
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 3 Jul 08 at 04:11
|
|
|
|
Haven't tried it..
|
|
Warbo
wrote on the 4 Jul 08 at 03:32
|
|
|
I completely agree, I was just stating that there's a chicken-and-egg problem of adoption (obviously stifled greatly by the existence of IE) and that the current state is in flux. I back the idea, but for ubby's vision of video I'm sure there will be hurdles to cross, including some form of WMV and a few Quicktimes no doubt :(
To stop being pragmatic for a moment and take a trip to dreamland, I'd gladly give my time for any Free Software project trying to implement XHTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, MNG, SMIL, ECMAScript, XMPP and RDF. The technological ideals embodied in those standards would mean a rich web indeed. Alas, I doubt we'll see it until we get an AI which can read the specs and go "Oh, I get it" :P
|
|
|
|
I like this idea. Even if it isn't used much, it still allows some nice possibilities. +1
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 23 Sep 08 at 00:08
|
|
|
Actually, I feel it would be used quite a lot, because eventually it could also import flash files. It doesn't need to read existing HTML/AJAX/whatever code, just be able to output its creations in it ;)
In terms of video, Firefox 3.1 will be implementing the new HTML standard which officially adds video support.
|
|
Meryl
wrote on the 25 Sep 08 at 22:26
|
|
|
This idea has my full support because it solves a major usability problem that continually impacts Ubuntu's popularity. The compile era is over, the package installation era is here but if we seriously want Ubuntu to be the most popular OS in the world we should focus on these usability issues and move towards the "Isn't it nice when things just 'work' era".
N00bs always complain about having to install plugins and multimedia codecs from the restricted extras package ...and rightly so. I hope that a complete browser plugin & codec solution can be included along with the default browser on a standard installation (as an optional install feature).
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 26 Sep 08 at 03:04
|
|
|
|
Thats what I'm saying though. All these technologies are built into any standards compliant browser. No plugin would be needed.. It fixes the problem, instead of stuff like Gnash which just fixes the symptoms.
|
|
R2D2-21
wrote on the 25 Apr 09 at 21:16
|
|
|
|
I also thınk thıs ıs a great ıdea, although thıs seems to be abandoned sınce the last comment ıs from the last year.
|
|
|
I'm Auzy (changed my nick ages ago), and it hasn't been abandoned.
a) I don't really need to randomly comment for no purpose
b) I have seen a few cases now of people implementing stuff for brainstorm (by me inclusive). Every time people do nothing but vote it down. In my case in particular, my program solved MANY important problems. People did not give it the light of day, hence why there is no reason I would touch this idea.
c) Whilst such a converter or exporter for the flash design tool could easily generate a lot of income, Canonical doesn't seem to have the resources for it. I now personally believe it has more to do with mismanagement of resources though. Heres ubuntuheres libnotifyHeres the rest of Canonical's resources. Whilst there are critical problems still in the main distro, Canonical seems to be forking off onto netbook remix's and such.
The problem with doing so is that by doing so, they are ending up with a few average products, rather then at least one really good one. Until there is one which is excellent on all accounts, I don't think that the resources squandered on stuff like landscape would be better spent. In the long run landscape is great, but at the moment, it doesn't really fit in.
My opinion though. But like mentioned. Not eager to code another product for a negative crowd. If I did, the moment an issue was found they would write it off.
|
|
|
Sorry.. Not sure what happened there (think I accidentally copied and pasted something)..
fixed:
=====
I'm Auzy (changed my nick ages ago), and it hasn't been abandoned.
a) I don't really need to randomly comment for no purpose
b) I have seen a few cases now of people implementing stuff for brainstorm (by me inclusive). Every time people do nothing but vote it down. In my case in particular, my program solved MANY important problems. People did not give it the light of day, hence why there is no reason I would touch this idea.
c) Whilst such a converter or exporter for the flash design tool could easily generate a lot of income, Canonical doesn't seem to have the resources for it. I now personally believe it has more to do with mismanagement of resources though. Whilst there are critical problems still in the main distro, Canonical seems to be forking off onto netbook remix's and such. By doing so, they are ending up with a few average products, rather then at least one really good one. Until there is one which is excellent on all accounts, I don't think that the resources squandered on stuff like landscape, because you need to generate an aura of "we code amazing products" first. In the long run landscape is great, but at the moment, it doesn't really fit in.
My opinion though. Not personally eager to code another product for a negative crowd. And at the moment, I'd probably code it with cross platform in mind, but judging by the reception I got for the other stuff I coded in the past, I personally would focus on windows support foremost. Its difficult to crack the market of a distribution which is overly focused on cutting features out to fit on an out of date media format
|
Post your comment
|
